Let's not forget one minor detail. Knock on wood, but I'm betting at least one of those players on the list (besides Jones) gets an injury during their final contract year, which will bring their value down. From the way they play, it's bound to happen.

Regarding Tate, if he continues to play like he's playing now, he's worth a solid #2 WR contract.

Sarlacc83 wrote:Apparently you have poor addition skills, then. 4 years from 2012 is 2016. So I'm not sure how your point is still valid.

Here's the CBA sentence we're talking about;

"For those players taken in the second through seventh rounds, they can sign only four-year contracts. If they become great players, the clubs can renegotiate with them or they can file for free agency after four years. Plus, there are now better guarantees against career-ending injuries in this agreement."

So does "if they can become great players the clubs can renegotiate with them" sentence mean the renegotiation can happen PRIOR to the four years being up? Cause that's how I read it, or else why would it be renegotiating?

Sarlacc83 wrote:Apparently you have poor addition skills, then. 4 years from 2012 is 2016. So I'm not sure how your point is still valid.

Here's the CBA sentence we're talking about;

"For those players taken in the second through seventh rounds, they can sign only four-year contracts. If they become great players, the clubs can renegotiate with them or they can file for free agency after four years. Plus, there are now better guarantees against career-ending injuries in this agreement."

So does "if they can become great players the clubs can renegotiate with them" sentence mean the renegotiation can happen PRIOR to the four years being up? Cause that's how I read it, or else why would it be renegotiating?

I'm not seeing anything that sounds like what a CBA Lawyer would write.

I will, however, provide you a link to a layman's explanation for your consideration.

All rookie contracts have a pre-determined length that the team and player can not deviate from: all draft picks sign 4-year contracts. All undrafted free agents sign 3-year contracts. In addition there is a 5th-year option on 1st round pick contracts that the club can choose to pick up. For picks 1-10, the cost of this option will be equal to the average of the top 10 salaries at the player's position in the prior year. For other 1st round picks, the cost is the average of the 3rd to 25th top salaries at the player's position.Per article 7 section 3k, a drafted rookie's contract may not be altered, renegotiated or extended until the final regular season game of his 3rd NFL season. An undrafted rookie's contract may similarly not be touched until the final regular season game of his 2nd NFL season. Since we renegotiated Aaron Curry before the end of his 3rd season, I think contracts from the previous CBA period remain under the old rules, which stipulated no renegotiation until the end of the 2nd year.

This topic is exactly why I said during the preseason that Seattle's Superbowl window could potentially be the widest in 2012 and 2013, before a deluge of pro-bowl players hit their first free agency.

Here's the good news: players that re-sign with their teams generally accept contracts that are slightly lower cost and more team friendly. More good news- some of our best players are very humble (especially Sherman and Thomas)- I don't see them as being contract diva's telling the media that the Seahawks "had better come correct" in contract negotiations. It is far better to build a team out of your own free agents than from other teams, because you already know how good they will play for you and they usually sign back for a hometown discount of some size. This is a good problem to have.

The bad news is that barring a huge increase in the salary cap, we're probably going to see some talented Seahawks walk away over the next few years. Jason Jones, Alan Branch, maybe even Kam Chancellor and probably Brandon Browner. I don't see Sherman or Thomas going anywhere. Seattle will obviously franchise if it comes to that.

On the bright side, if we lose quality players with pro-bowls on their resumes, we'll likely get comp picks in return. It seems like Pittsburgh and Green Bay have 2-4 comp picks every year. If we lose Chancellor, there is a pretty good chance we'd get the maximum (late 3rd round) pick as compensation, which would be more than the team spent to acquire Chancellor in the first place.

So yeah, the team will probably never have more talent per dollar than it has right now, but if JS manages things right, it should only barely drop off assuming that he can keep churning out 2-3 good players every year in the draft.

As much as I hate to say this.... Pete and JS have shown they can draft on defense very well, so i woudn't be suprised if they keep taking shots at drafting db's every draft and if they hit on one then they might not be so eager to pay Sherman 10 mil a year. Also if they have to chose between Kam and Earl, I think its a no brainer, you got to go with Earl.

taz291819 wrote:Let's not forget one minor detail. Knock on wood, but I'm betting at least one of those players on the list (besides Jones) gets an injury during their final contract year, which will bring their value down. From the way they play, it's bound to happen.

Regarding Tate, if he continues to play like he's playing now, he's worth a solid #2 WR contract.

taz291819 wrote:Let's not forget one minor detail. Knock on wood, but I'm betting at least one of those players on the list (besides Jones) gets an injury during their final contract year, which will bring their value down. From the way they play, it's bound to happen.

Regarding Tate, if he continues to play like he's playing now, he's worth a solid #2 WR contract.

you would bet that one of our young stars gets hurt?

I would resign Tate , but no more then 4m a year

Sorry man, just being realistic. With the way they play and hit, the odds are against them.

With regards to drafting players to replace future free agents, we should keep in mind that Pete has said that the advantage he's had as a former college coach will eventually dwindle. Now I do think we still have a great scouting staff, including our own John Schneider, but we should not automatically assume that Pete and John will continue to find these diamonds in the rough to the same degree they have thus far.

MLOhawks wrote:I like Browner more than Sherm, but we got to keep ALL FOUR of our secondary. It would be a disaster if we lost any of them.

your kidding right? You'd prefer the guy with more penalties and less passes defended? I like Browner too, but his age makes him expendable to me. He'll be 30 soon and he's not exactly blazing fast. 2 me Earl and Sherman are the 2 most important players in the secondary.

The first 5, to me, are the identity of the team and are critical to keep. The last three I like, but I don't see them as critical in growing the team. Golden is coming into his own, but I think there are rookies in the draft that can be had to replicate what he gives us, and the same with Branch and Jones. Does that mean I want to jettison them? No, I would love to have long-term relationships for them here. I just know I won't lose sleep if we can't keep them. I don't feel that way about the Legion of Boom, however.

The only change I see is I'd let Wright go and bring back Jones

"Tracy Porter lost his manhood when Marshawn stiff armed﻿ him" some dude on youtube.

CANHawk wrote:^Amen. Tate is super important to the offense. I'm a huge fan of what he brings. I wouldn't even think about parting ways with him at this point (unless he demands a totally stupid contract extension that is.)

What you have to ask is...could a cheaper rookie do his job? That's it...it's a bidness, and I waod say that any number of 4-7 draft picks can do what he does...and get separation as well on a consistent basis.

Had a great year..but replaceable

In fact I could argue that a faster taller version I him could do more!And cheaper mid round pick with a chip on his shoulder fighting for veteran contract

You'd also have to ask if continuety and the chemistry would play a part in bringing in an unknown, remember Koren?

To be honest I'm not that concerned. With the way this team finds players throughout the draft, I don't think it's going to be much of an issue. I have faith in our FO to keep this going. Every draft they show us what they can do . Yes it would be nice to keep all our great players around but just keep in mind that 2 years ago, or even beginning of last year, you wouldn't have care about most of these guys. We find talent. We will keep who we need, and find what we need to replace .

Diamonds in the rough still need polishing. What I mean is that tremendous athletic ability and field smarts still need a nourishing environment to flourish. This beautiful problem we're discussing is a direct result of having a well-honed coaching staff and GM who operate under a philosophy that is much more encompassing than we've seen here in a long time.

Pete brought the "always compete/win forever" focus, but it's not "his" system, the way Holmgren (and so many other coaches) had "his" way of doing things. If you didn't buy into Holmie, you didn't play. Right now, Seahawk players have to buy into competing more so than Pete, the man; the difference seems subtle when reduced to a single sentence like that, but it's a major one. If you shy away from competition, you're gone. The ones who stick with it get polished and they shine. I believe it's the adoption of the larger, conceptual, mantra that has brought out the best in all these players we're talking about.

They are playing for money, as all professionals are, but these guys are playing for pride and starting spots like no other team in recent memory. These guys are playing with the unbridled passion of a great high school team, and that is a compliment. Cash and cap room will be issues, but I think these players who are performing so well understand there is something special about this program (remember how much PC uses that term?) and that a little cost-share amongst teammates will go a long way to preserve the atmosphere that propelled each of them to excel as they have. The motivation is built into the entire organizational structure because of PC, JS, the rest of the coaches, and the players believing in it.

Ultimately, the more we win, the more these great players will want to stick around. But even with that, after two 7-9 seasons, none of these competitors came close to giving up, slowing down, or wanting out. We've seen that kind of stuff in the past. It is the belief in the philosophy that has this team, and individual players, getting better all the time. I foresee this belief being essential in keeping the core components and key players together as long as they're productive.

HawkAroundTheClock wrote: It is the belief in the philosophy that has this team, and individual players, getting better all the time. I foresee this belief being essential in keeping the core components and key players together as long as they're productive.

I always rolled my eyes a little when Pete goes into his "Always Compete" mumbo jumbo.

IMO the brilliance of how Carroll and Schneider have built the Hawks is because they've made a concerted effort to draft and bring in players with chips on their shoulders for one reason or another.

- Lynch: Told he was a head case and not worthy of being an elite back- Wilson: Told he was too short- Irvin: Pass rushing specialist with a troubled past never going to achieve anything- Sherman: Converted WR too slow and big to amount to anything at the DB position- Chancellor: Too big to play Safety, should have been drafted as a late round LB- Browner: Canadian Football wash out

You get the point, all players that are going to bust their ass, study, prepare and scratch and claw every ounce of effort to prove the haters wrong. THIS is the genius behind the rebuilding process over the past 3-4 years.

Call me selfish, but that is one reason why I don't want some of these players to go to the pro bowl (not saying they don't deserve it). Just one more thing for them to be able to hike up their value. I know that sounds stupid, but really I think the Pro Bowl is completely pointless nowadays. Can't we just have our cake and eat it too!?

Here's to hoping that most of them love playing here and are willing to negotiate a decent contract to stay even if that means not getting as much as they could if they went elsewhere!

HawkAroundTheClock wrote: It is the belief in the philosophy that has this team, and individual players, getting better all the time. I foresee this belief being essential in keeping the core components and key players together as long as they're productive.

I always rolled my eyes a little when Pete goes into his "Always Compete" mumbo jumbo.

IMO the brilliance of how Carroll and Schneider have built the Hawks is because they've made a concerted effort to draft and bring in players with chips on their shoulders for one reason or another.

- Lynch: Told he was a head case and not worthy of being an elite back- Wilson: Told he was too short- Irvin: Pass rushing specialist with a troubled past never going to achieve anything- Sherman: Converted WR too slow and big to amount to anything at the DB position- Chancellor: Too big to play Safety, should have been drafted as a late round LB- Browner: Canadian Football wash out

You get the point, all players that are going to bust their ass, study, prepare and scratch and claw every ounce of effort to prove the haters wrong. THIS is the genius behind the rebuilding process over the past 3-4 years.

That is true, no argument. But that chip does no good if there's no support system to funnel the resentment into competition. A guy can have something to prove, but with no unifying guidance – in a team sport especially – it does not necessarily translate to success. Without the philosophy, there's just an angry young man out for himself. If the players rolled their eyes at competition "mumbo jumbo" we would not be having this conversation. With a lesser coaching staff, or an incomplete philosophy, we would be trying to figure out how to get rid of all these head-cases and bitter late-round picks. Pete's approach is not a bumper-sticker slogan ("It's NOW Time", anyone?) it's an approach to the game and to life that he has refined through experience and reflection. Richard Sherman answered a chat question last week asking what Pete Carroll was like behind closed doors with "Just as he is in front of everybody." There's no posturing, no head games, no grandstanding. Doing your best is not about listening to him, it's about what is inside each player. You compete at every moment to maximize your potential and this belief is the focus of this team. No doubt, you gotta get the right guys to buy in; those chip-on-the-shoulder guys you mentioned are a perfect fit for this FO's approach.

HawkAroundTheClock wrote:That is true, no argument. But that chip does no good if there's no support system to funnel the resentment into competition. A guy can have something to prove, but with no unifying guidance – in a team sport especially – it does not necessarily translate to success. Without the philosophy, there's just an angry young man out for himself. If the players rolled their eyes at competition "mumbo jumbo" we would not be having this conversation. With a lesser coaching staff, or an incomplete philosophy, we would be trying to figure out how to get rid of all these head-cases and bitter late-round picks. Pete's approach is not a bumper-sticker slogan ("It's NOW Time", anyone?) it's an approach to the game and to life that he has refined through experience and reflection. Richard Sherman answered a chat question last week asking what Pete Carroll was like behind closed doors with "Just as he is in front of everybody." There's no posturing, no head games, no grandstanding. Doing your best is not about listening to him, it's about what is inside each player. You compete at every moment to maximize your potential and this belief is the focus of this team. No doubt, you gotta get the right guys to buy in; those chip-on-the-shoulder guys you mentioned are a perfect fit for this FO's approach.

Don't get me wrong, Pete's positive approach to football (and life) is infectious........so I'm sure that rubs off on the players. But if we were to divide up into percentages as to what's making this team tick? I'd say it's 80% roster of players playing with a purpose to prove people wrong and get paid, and about 20% Carroll's "always compete happy happy" philosophy.

HawkAroundTheClock wrote:That is true, no argument. But that chip does no good if there's no support system to funnel the resentment into competition. A guy can have something to prove, but with no unifying guidance – in a team sport especially – it does not necessarily translate to success. Without the philosophy, there's just an angry young man out for himself. If the players rolled their eyes at competition "mumbo jumbo" we would not be having this conversation. With a lesser coaching staff, or an incomplete philosophy, we would be trying to figure out how to get rid of all these head-cases and bitter late-round picks. Pete's approach is not a bumper-sticker slogan ("It's NOW Time", anyone?) it's an approach to the game and to life that he has refined through experience and reflection. Richard Sherman answered a chat question last week asking what Pete Carroll was like behind closed doors with "Just as he is in front of everybody." There's no posturing, no head games, no grandstanding. Doing your best is not about listening to him, it's about what is inside each player. You compete at every moment to maximize your potential and this belief is the focus of this team. No doubt, you gotta get the right guys to buy in; those chip-on-the-shoulder guys you mentioned are a perfect fit for this FO's approach.

Don't get me wrong, Pete's positive approach to football (and life) is infectious........so I'm sure that rubs off on the players. But if we were to divide up into percentages as to what's making this team tick? I'd say it's 80% roster of players playing with a purpose to prove people wrong and get paid, and about 20% Carroll's "always compete happy happy" philosophy.

HawkAroundTheClock wrote:That is true, no argument. But that chip does no good if there's no support system to funnel the resentment into competition. A guy can have something to prove, but with no unifying guidance – in a team sport especially – it does not necessarily translate to success. Without the philosophy, there's just an angry young man out for himself. If the players rolled their eyes at competition "mumbo jumbo" we would not be having this conversation. With a lesser coaching staff, or an incomplete philosophy, we would be trying to figure out how to get rid of all these head-cases and bitter late-round picks. Pete's approach is not a bumper-sticker slogan ("It's NOW Time", anyone?) it's an approach to the game and to life that he has refined through experience and reflection. Richard Sherman answered a chat question last week asking what Pete Carroll was like behind closed doors with "Just as he is in front of everybody." There's no posturing, no head games, no grandstanding. Doing your best is not about listening to him, it's about what is inside each player. You compete at every moment to maximize your potential and this belief is the focus of this team. No doubt, you gotta get the right guys to buy in; those chip-on-the-shoulder guys you mentioned are a perfect fit for this FO's approach.

Don't get me wrong, Pete's positive approach to football (and life) is infectious........so I'm sure that rubs off on the players. But if we were to divide up into percentages as to what's making this team tick? I'd say it's 80% roster of players playing with a purpose to prove people wrong and get paid, and about 20% Carroll's "always compete happy happy" philosophy.